On February 9th & 10th I visited Kansas State University (KSU), for my 12th sabbatical interviews. Thanks to the efforts of Dave Fritchen (Department head) and Ray Yunk (ArchE program coordinator) I met nine faculty currently teaching the design aspects of the AE program and others as well. As on my previous trips everyone was welcoming and helpful, making my visit both productive and enjoyable. (The visit also dispelled an easterner's preconceptions about the flatness of all things in Kansas and provided spring weather in February).
What did I learn?
- They're long established (1925)
- Like many programs they've moved administratively over time, but have been in their present configuration for about 30 years
- They're clear about their mission and determined in following it - producing "industry ready" building engineers
- They rely on twice-yearly advisory council meetings for indications of what industry needs
- All of their faculty come from industry and continue industry relationships through consulting or committee activities
- They feel independent of academic trends
- Of the seventeen tenure-track faculty only one has a PhD
- Classroom teaching is the core value, with research not a part of the academic responsibilities.
- Typical faculty teaching loads are 4 or five courses/term, with responsibility for all grading (no teaching assistants)
- Faculty also have a strong (50+ students/faculty member) advising responsibility
- This approach is different from most of the rest of the university
- The department's physical facilities are excellent
- The department raised the money for the facilities and was involved in the design and construction
- Industry cooperation extends to student employment during the semester
- Two firms (from Texas and Kansas City) have set up remote sites immediately off-campus where student employees work via the internet, supervised both by a company employee and (several hours/week) by a faculty member.
- The 800 students in the department's two programs make it the largest in the college of engineering
Teaching Methods and Curriculum
- The five-year program bachelor program uses the additional credits beyond those in the typical four-year program for greater breadth and depth
(158 credit hours to graduate).
- Students take essentially the same curriculum for the first 3-1/2 years and then have a choice between an MEP and a structural track.
- Unlike most other AE programs the MEP track is approximately twice as popular as the structural track
- In the one-semester capstone design course (individual work, though the prior course is team-oriented) a student is expected to address all the systems in a building in depth
- There are two sections of this course, one devoted to structural design, the other to MEP
- The prior course is focused on schematic design of the MEP and structural systems with an emphasis on understanding the interaction of design decisions. It uses a problem-based learning approach. [2/12/2009 Correction]
- The faculty take great pride that they have many years of industry experience and therefore can teach the students the way designs and documentation are actually created in industry
- Codes are used extensively
- There is an emphasis on professionalism in conduct as well as product
- A complement to this industry-focused approach is that the role of theory development or exploration is not viewed as a critical part of the education.
- One senior faculty member explained it to me that there really hasn't been much significant change in the equipment and theories on which the industry is based in the last thirty-five years so time spent on applying theory is more valuable.
- Another noted that most new knowledge comes through the professional association, which are very active at KSU.
- e.g. 20 students typically attend the ASHRAE convention
- The role of hand-drawing (sketches) is highly valued
- For this reason there are still two (down from nine when one faculty member was a student) hand drafting classes.
- The Construction Science program (4-year non-engineering) is an excellent complement to the AE program
- Faculty in the department teach in both programs
- Students who have difficulty with the math-science portion of engineering in the first two years find a switch to Construction Science easy.
- There are shared upper-level elective courses that give the AE students good professional knowledge of construction
- SEI Model program
- The department is working with the Civil Engineering department to develop a master's level offering that would follow the Structural Engineering Institute (SEI) recommendation - perhaps offering a certificate
- Graduate program
- The department has a small masters program (report rather than thesis) including a BS/MS program
- Most of the students in the program are BS/Ms students
- 3/4 are structural and 1/4 are MEP [2/17/2009 correction]
- The program is limited in size to about 24 students - larger was found to be unwieldy [2/17/2009 correction]
- Seminar Program
- All students in the program (freshman to senior) are required to attend a 4-times-per-semester no-credit single seminar that typically brings in outside speakers, often talking about a specific project
AE Content Issues
Overall KSU faculty feel content with what they're doing. I found no significant themes. The notes below represent observations or minor issues.
- Sustainability
- The department is proud that their industry advisory board alerted them to the impeding importance of LEED and that a faculty member was the first LEED-certified instructor in the nation.
- Energy conservation and wise use of resources is emphasized throughout the curriculum
- BIM
- The attitude towards BIM appears to be that it's more important in the construction area than in the engineering area.
- Revit is being used, but there is little sense that it's going to require significant rethinking of any other issues.
- Bachelor's + 30
- The department is confident that their five-year program will meet the intent of this change
- Computer use
- As noted in relation to hand-drawing and BIM, the general approach appears to be cautious about committing to computer dependence in education.
- There is apparently a continuing discussion: computer programs are used in many courses and many are available in the department's computer labs.
Students
- Students overwhelming go into consulting engineering careers
- The option for construction careers, common in many other AE programs, is addressed here by the construction science program.
- The breakdown of graduate employment (50-60/year) is approximately
- MEP consulting 2/3 of graduates
- Structural consulting 1/3
- Other - minor
- Women are well represented in the program
- About 25% of the students and the faculty
- Student attrition is fairly significant in the first two years, and not thereafter
- About 120 identify as AE's as freshman
- About 50-60 graduate
Observations
- Two aspects of the KSU program are unique and appear to contribute to its success
- Its reliance on industry-trained faculty who often obtain their advanced degree (usually Masters) while teaching at KSU
- The alliance with the construction program, which has both financial and educational advantages
- In conversations with younger faculty there was some sense that greater help in making the transition from industry to a teaching role would be helpful
- There is a mentoring program - it was felt to be variably helpful
- There is also a "LEARN" seminar series available from the university that helped some
- The idea of a teaching workshop in the summer preceding teaching was appreciated by many
- The effects of the "flattening" of the world thanks to the internet are vividly illustrated by the firms that have set up storefront operations to take advantage of student assistance.
- The implications of this flattening for future employment opportunities for graduates in a world-economy would seem to be worth considering - for KSU and every other institution.
About my Sabbatical Project
- The issue of the location of an AE program in the administrative setup was once again highlighted.
- There seems to be a fairly consistent pattern that those that are contained within a "Civil, Architectural & xxxx" arrangement do not have the strength that independent departments do. Whether that's a historical artifact or a consequence of the arrangement is not clear.
